Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 571
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N. ANANDA, J.
Ramesh Bayari
Versus
State of Karnataka rep. by Shankarnarayana Police Station
Criminal Petition No. 4637 of 2013
Decided on : 05.09.2013
For the Petitioner:Ravi B. Naik, Senior Advocate for M.J. Alva, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP.
Prima facie evidence based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness statements, and call details, can be sufficient to deny bail to an accused.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC - Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 r/w 149 - The court dismissed the bail petition of the accused, who was alleged to have conspired with others to kidnap and murder the deceased. The court found prima facie evidence against the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness statements, and call details. The court held that the nature and magnitude of the offences and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident did not warrant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was alleged to have conspired with others to kidnap and murder the deceased, with whom he had long-standing civil disputes. The deceased's body was found with injuries and tied limbs in a tank, and the accused was suspected even before the body was discovered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence against the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness statements, and call details. The court held that it would not be in the interest of justice to release the accused on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be granted bail despite the prima facie evidence against him for the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prima facie evidence against the accused, the nature and magnitude of the offences, and the accused's conduct before and after the incident in deciding not to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail petition of the accused, holding that it would not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail.
1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.5/2013, registered for offences punishable under sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC. As per final report dated 30.03.2013, there were long standing civil disputes between petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga hail from the same village called Kokkanbailu, Vandaru Village, Udupi Taluk. The civil litigations had ended in favour of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. Therefore, petitioner had developed grudge against deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner is alleged to have entered into conspiracy with other accused. Accused No.2 is the brother-in-law of petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy in the house of his brother-in-law (accused No.2- Subramanya Udupa) at Bangalore on 04.01.2013. The petitioner is alleged to have entered into conspiracy with accused 3 to 8 and engage them as mercenaries to kidnap and commit murder of deceased Vasudeva Adiga.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.01.2013, deceased Vasudeva Adiga was kidnapped by petitioner and other accused. The deceased Vasudeva Adiga was done to death. The deadbody was transported in a car. The hands were tied and a stone was tied to deadbody of deceased Vasudeva Adiga and it was thrown into Madagada tank of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District.
3. The petitioner was arrested during investigation. He is in judicial custody. The petitioner has sought for bail.
4. I have heard Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.
5. Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:-
I. The case of prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.
II. The investigation records do not reveal that petitioner had entered into conspiracy with other accused in the house of accused No.2 to kidnap and commit murder of deceased Vasudev Adiga.
III. Accused No.2-Subramanya Udupa in whose house alleged conspiracy had taken place has been released on bail. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
IV. The prosecution has relied on inadmissible documents and weak evidence to implicate petitioner. There is no prima facie case against petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
6. The learned HCGP has made following submissions:-
I. This is second successive bail petition before this court. The petitioner has filed Criminal Petition No.1408/2013 before this Hon'ble Court and it was dismissed on 14.03.2013. The petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.2307/2013 and it was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.06.2013.
II. There are prima facie incriminating circumstances against petitioner, which are stated thus:-
(i) Petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga had fought long standing civil litigations, which ended in favour of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. There was long standing enmity between petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner had motive to commit murder of deceased Vasudeva Adiga.
(ii) The statements of eye witnesses would reveal that on 04.01.2013, petitioner had gone to the house of accused No.2-Subramanya Udupa at Bangalore. At that time, petitioner, accused No.2 and other accused hatched conspiracy to eliminate deceased Vasudea Adiga. These facts are found in the statements of witnesses, who had overheard conversations of petitioner and other accused.
(iii) The suspicious movements of petitioner with other accused on 07.01.2013 were noticed by other witnesses. Even before deadbody of deceased was noticed near Madagada lake of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District, the mother of deceased Vasudeva Adiga had lodged first information against petitioner, alleging that petitioner and other accused had kidnapped deceased Vasudeva Adiga.
(iv) There is prima facie case against petitioner. Therefore, he cannot be enlarged on bail. The bail granted to accused no.2 during the
